I agree with Stiglitz's premise that major inequality is bad for general social, political and economic cohesion. However, if I disagreed with StiglitI agree with Stiglitz's premise that major inequality is bad for general social, political and economic cohesion. However, if I disagreed with Stiglitz, this book wouldn't change my mind, particularly not the book's beginning.

I'm not really sure who the audience is - people who agree with him, people on the fence or people who need convincing.

He is taking on the cult of Milton Friedman, which permeates our discussions. And in doing so, his arguments are straightforward. Money does not trickle down. High payments to CEO's are bonuses in good times and retention payments in bad. There is nothing innately natural about "natural unemployment". But by sticking to the Friedman script, the book fails to come up with a framework and following language to make the case. Instead it works very hard to show the gaps in logic of Friedman's philosophy. And so in my humble opinion, if you already agree, you agree. If you disagree, it gives you nothing to re-think your current position. ...more

Rather than a review of 13 Bankers, I am wrestling with understanding the response to the book. It makes me feel like I’m missing something and did noRather than a review of 13 Bankers, I am wrestling with understanding the response to the book. It makes me feel like I’m missing something and did not get the secret decoder ring. Unlike most books that explore the 2008 financial collapse, this book looks back to the political viewpoints of Jefferson and Hamilton. In a nutshell, Jefferson didn’t trust big government. In addition to that, he didn’t trust any highly centralized power and this included the banks. In contrast, Hamilton did trust a centralized government with powers to encourage the finance system. For Jefferson this is not tenable because you have two powers interconnected which leads to unchecked powers. So if I’m even close – then that’s step one of the decoder ring. That’s the basic argument. The problem is now fitting those arguments into today’s inauthentic political discourse. How does one take this fundamental argument and transform it into good guys and bad guys? Many reviews acknowledge Johnson’s solid historical analysis of financial regulations and then dismiss him as a crazy conspiracy theorist. See an example here: http://www.economist.com/node/15716841So rather than taking on Johnson’s arguments, he’s labeled as a conspiracist.I haven’t finished the book – but since he’s invoked Jefferson, I presume his solution is more democracy. However, his first solution seems to be that America needs another Andrew Jackson or Franklin D. Roosevelt. And here is where I think my disappointment might develop. More democracy means more process. And process is slow, difficult and demands people to work together. This is the discussion America needs to have – rather than “finding” and labeling the good guys and the bad guys. Instead, by discussing the leaders of these complicated political movements, the argument simplifies the solution to a single person – a super hero. I will update upon completion of the book.

Final thoughts: The book does provide a thorough examination of financial regulation. Rather than pointing to a single politician, the book calls for greater regulation. It argues that markets are not all knowing and are not self-correcting. ...more

There’s a generalization that people make that really gets me. It’s the idea that people naturally prefer or practice competition over collaboration oThere’s a generalization that people make that really gets me. It’s the idea that people naturally prefer or practice competition over collaboration or cooperation. Usually this is said as a way to dismiss addressing inequalities in America and to explain why capitalism is the only choice. Socialism or any hybrid economic system is doomed. Doomed! There are several reasons the acceptance of individual competition over striving for the group’s overall well-being seems to be a social norm rather than an innate human trait. And even if it was an innate human trait, I believe we can rise above it. While working together is a shared value in my family, living in Japan showed me it could be a bigger social norm. There are other reasons I question the all-out assumption that competition trumps collaboration, but let’s go with those two.

When I picked up Predictably Irrational, I was worried that the book was going to give me absolute arguments similar to the one I outlined above. It’s the way it is because people practice it that way. Instead, I believe if I brought this observation to Ariely he would say something like: Why do you think that is? How are the innate human traits reinforced by society to make something more commonly practiced?

Ariely describes his interest in understanding people's behavior in groups based on a fire accident. Ariely suffered third degree burns from an explosion. The recovery period isolated Ariely. And that isolation brought him a new perception of people. I believe that it can also happen when you live in another country. Living in Japan, I frequently felt separate from those around me. And while my feelings of isolation were not as deep as Ariely, there were many occasions where I felt like I was observing people around me with new eyes. In other words, I take Ariely to be the kind of person who could acknowledge that people are both competitive and collaborative. And he would be equally interested in what social norms brought out one behavior more so than the other.

That said – his tests (usually of MIT, Harvard or Stanford students) often left me with more questions. For example when given three choices – with one being a decoy choice – 75% of students took the bait and chose the one researchers wanted them to choose. And I would think – what’s happening with that other 25%. Because in my mind – 25% is still a lot of people. What were they thinking?

Another section discusses how people see themselves as mostly honest. When given the opportunity to cheat, they mostly self-regulate even with intentional leeway to cheat more and not get caught. However the further people are from money the more likely they are to cheat. For example, if you take an expense account and have a procedure of receipts and involve another person (an assistant who submits them), these buffers (from the actual cash) lead to a situation where people are more likely to cheat on their expense accounts. In July 2010, my house was flooded. I experienced five feet of water in my basement. FEMA and then later the SBA visited me. And there was a procedure much like Ariely describes. If anything, I underestimated the cost of the damages. This may be because I was warned that if I was found to be lying, I would have to return the money. But at several times I was encouraged to really be sure that I was certain of my reporting because the estimate could go down, but it could never go up. And I should include things that could later be taken out. Perhaps those conversations were a bit like signing an honesty code. However, I do the same thing – underreport my expenses – with my expense account at work. Perhaps that's just me being part of the (figurative) 25%.

What I appreciate about Ariely’s presentation of research is that he doesn't box himself into saying this is the way humans behave. Rather – if you consider these conditions – asking people to sign an honor code – you encourage this kind of behavior – greater rates of honesty. ...more

He's really good at bringing characters to life with short stories. His ability to show the reader entertaining characters brought me along from one cHe's really good at bringing characters to life with short stories. His ability to show the reader entertaining characters brought me along from one crazy to story to the next. He cuts through the ridiculous levels of greed with succinct descriptive statements. However, the book would have been stronger with some thought to a thread throughout the book. Greed and the stupidity of management could have been finessed to play that role. ...more

A solid collection of what I would consider known facts about marijuana and porn. Americans are conflicted - or not passionately moved to monitor thesA solid collection of what I would consider known facts about marijuana and porn. Americans are conflicted - or not passionately moved to monitor these activities in a humane way. For me it felt like a solid summary to the debate, but no new information and definitely not a new way to look at the information. It felt very stale to me. ...more

Of all the books that I read about the 2008 economic collapse, I find this one the most depressing. The Big Short looks at specific events leading upOf all the books that I read about the 2008 economic collapse, I find this one the most depressing. The Big Short looks at specific events leading up to 2008.

The book is a classic description of how those in power did not see what was happening. At some point, it becomes those in power did not want to see what was in front of them. And Michael Lewis concludes (through his cast of characters) that they were either stupid or criminal. This conclusion is repeated throughout.

It's easy to be cynical reading this story. Even as it becomes evident that things are not as they seem in the housing market, those "in the know" focus on how to make money and not "fixing" the problem. A few futile efforts are described. Ben & Charlie try to alert friends who work at the New York Times. Their friends tell them to go to the SEC where they get no response. Was that enough? Again and again the story suggests that the normal channels for addressing fraud in the market were not functioning. A market sprung up where there was no regulation and then refused to become transparent. It's this mix of intention and lack of intention that I found so depressing. In other books, I felt there were clear bad guys. This book does not make things so tidy.

When the market collapsed in 2008, I remember almost every report saying it's too complicated to explain. Paul Krugman takes what everyone claimed wasWhen the market collapsed in 2008, I remember almost every report saying it's too complicated to explain. Paul Krugman takes what everyone claimed was too complicated and attempts to explain it. Basically, he says there are two banking systems. One that has regulation - though we've relaxed the regulation. And one that is not so regulated. The less regulated banking system began to take risks that initially made them a lot of money. And so they were drawn in to take more gambles. In addition, they did not take risks - someone else would take the hit if the venture failed. So they had nothing to lose as individuals. This is something that I have to mull over. I liked the book because I walk away feeling I understand the economic collapse better than before. I'm unclear what exactly the unregulated banking system is. ...more

I enjoyed the last two-thirds of the book more. The first third of the book covers pretty common territory. As for the writing, sentences are difficulI enjoyed the last two-thirds of the book more. The first third of the book covers pretty common territory. As for the writing, sentences are difficult to read. I found the writing very choppy, which caused me to put the book down with great frequency. ...more

I liked this book. It took the current view of business and democracy and made it more complex. But in doing so, I think it makes it easier to understI liked this book. It took the current view of business and democracy and made it more complex. But in doing so, I think it makes it easier to understand. I'm not hopeful at a solution. Very quick easy read - I think that I read the bulk of it in 2 days. ...more

While the big message in this book is good, it's delivered much like a someone who's been wronged and takes it personally by documenting every singleWhile the big message in this book is good, it's delivered much like a someone who's been wronged and takes it personally by documenting every single transgression against him. This leads to a very accurate book with much documentation - transcripts, letters and news articles. Put another way: good for facts - bad for storytelling. The story would have benefited from setting a larger context of fraud. I think it would have been stronger from someone not so close to the subject. Or a stronger editor might have also done the trick. David uses some personal information - but I found the personal stuff to be a distraction - and no moving the story forward. ...more